1918年西班牙流感的教训


通过比较St.Louis和Philadelphia两个城市的数据,证明保持社交距离可以有效降低感染率。  而提前开工让亚特兰大的疫情一直得不到有效控制,直到1919年才得到缓解

现在有报道说1000个医学工作者呼吁不要用COVID做借口来阻止游行,不知道这些医学工作者知不知道这个历史呢?




发布人:倪[医生]
发布日期:2020-06-07 11:42:37


  • 倪[医生] 2020-06-07 11:50:06评论 引用评论
    By now, many have pointed out the comparisons between St. Louis and Philadelphia during the fall of 1918. St. Louis acted early, with layered and sustained measures, and enjoyed one of the lowest mortality rates in America. In Philadelphia, battles between politicians, slow responses, and huge crowds at Liberty Loan parades led to a massive increase in influenza cases after such gatherings. In fact, Philadelphia suffered the second worst death rates in the U.S., after Pittsburgh. A key finding of our work was that social distancing measures must be enforced for long periods of time until the virus becomes quiescent. That’s because — in 1918 as with today — these measures do not cure or prevent viral infections. They only allow us to hide from infection, reduce the number of people flooding hospitals at any given moment, and buy time to develop new therapies and vaccines. Here’s the rub, if the virus is still widely circulating when the lockdown breaks are released, the many millions who remain susceptible to it are at risk of getting sick. Back in 1918, the people of Atlanta soon grew weary of their city’s version of a lock-down against influenza. As a result, the mayor re-opened the city after only about two weeks of closures. His Board of Health objected because they predicted that Atlanta’s peak number of cases was not due for another nine days. The mayor dismissed their scientifically-informed advice and countered that there was no way to predict the future. Atlanta’s Public Safety Committee agreed and pronounced, “The influenza situation in Atlanta is up to the people themselves.” Guess what happened? Atlanta’s fall wave of the epidemic raged on, unchecked, through the end of 1918, and well into the winter of 1919. Atlanta’s experience was hardly unique.